GHULAM HUSSAIN Versus STATE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Ghulam Hussain, who was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death for murder, with his conviction and sentence subsequently upheld by the High Court. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether an out-of-court compromise between the parties, involving the transfer of land and marriages, could be considered a mitigating circumstance to reduce the sentence of death. The Court held that since the complainant party was sufficiently compensated and had entered into the compromise freely to foster goodwill, the compromise constituted a valid mitigating circumstance. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, partly allowed it by reducing the petitioner's death sentence to imprisonment for life, granted the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and maintained the sentence of fine under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 along with sentences under Section 323. The key principle laid down is that a genuine out-of-court compromise resulting in compensation and reconciliation can serve as a mitigating circumstance warranting the commutation of a death sentence to life imprisonment.
- Can an out-of-court compromise between the parties be considered as a mitigating circumstance in a murder case?
- Whether a death sentence can be reduced to imprisonment for life on the basis of a compromise between the accused and the legal heirs of the deceased?
- Is a convict entitled to the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when his death sentence is commuted to life imprisonment?
- Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
- Section 323, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J .‑‑ Ghulam Hussain petitioner was tried and convicted alongwith some others for the murder of Ghulam Qasim, for which he was sentenced to death. His appeal was dismissed by the High Court vide judgment dated 16‑4‑1984 and his death sentence was confirmed.
2. Feeling aggrieved he filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
3. On the last date of hearing (15‑2‑1987) learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the parties had compromised the matter between themselves out of Court and that it was a fit case for taking the aforementioned compromise as a mitigating circumstance.
We, therefore, issued notice to the State and learned counsel for the complainant, who are present in Court.
Copy of the compromise deed has also been placed before us which is supported by the affidavits of:
(1) Mst. Nazir Mai (widow of the deceased).
(2) Ghulam Abbas complainant (first cousin of the deceased),
(3) Mst. Subal Mai (mother of deceased);
(4) Shabbir (first cousin of the deceased); and
(5) Mukhtar Hussain (nephew of the deceased).
It is stated by the petitioner's counsel that two sisters of the accused‑petitioner have been given in marriage to the two brothers of the deceased and further that 10 Acres of land has also been transferred by the accused party to the family of the deceased. This fact is admitted by the learned counsel for the complainant.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we feel that the complainant party has been sufficiently compensated and that they have arrived at a compromise between themselves freely without any coercion, in order to create goodwill and avoid further bitterness. We, therefore, convert this petition into, an appeal and taking the aforementioned compromise as a mitigating circumstance, allow the appeal partly to the extent that the sentence of death of the petitioner is reduced to imprisonment for life. He is further allowed the benefit of section 382‑B, Cr.P.C. The sentence of fine under section 302, P.P.C., as well as sentences under section 323, P P C. are, however, maintained.
M.1. / G‑l I/S Order accordingly.